A bright light is about to be shone on an almost unseen social
problem: prison rape. On Sept. 4, 2003, President Bush signed the
Prison Rape Elimination Act, which provides for an annual Department
of Justice review on the rate and effects of prison rape. Why should
you care?

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, on Dec. 31, 2002, there
were 2,033,331 people incarcerated in the United States.
(Approximately 7 percent of those in state and federal prisons are
female.)

The U.S. prison population is rising. In 1980, there were just
over half a million inmates. The BJS estimates that, "If
incarceration rates remain unchanged, 6.6 percent of U.S. residents
born in 2001 will go to prison during their lifetime." (Other sources
place that figure higher.) The chances are that someone you
personally know -- and, perhaps, care about -- will become a
prisoner.

Estimates on the rate of prison rape vary. In 2001, Human Rights
Watch released a comprehensive report that estimated between 250,000
to 600,000 prisoners, overwhelmingly male, are raped each year.

Prison rape seems to be rising as well. Several academic studies
in the '80s estimated that 7 to 15 percent of inmates were raped: a
rate of 10 percent amounting to approximately 200,000 people. The
apparent increase may be due to the current practice of double
bunking and using dorm rooms to compensate for overcrowding.

In general, rape is under-reported and this tendency is almost
certainly exacerbated in understaffed prisons where authorities can
be unresponsive or hostile to complaints. In describing his ordeal to
Human Rights Watch, a suicidal inmate said his appeals for help to
prison authorities were fruitless, and concluded, "The opposite of
compassion is not hatred, it's indifference."

And yet, the question remains, "Why should you care?" One reason:
Prisoners are human beings. Approximately half of those imprisoned
today are "non-violent." Many have been arrested on drug charges or
for comparatively minor offenses, such as being behind in child
support payments.

The young and "unhardened" prisoners are the most vulnerable to
rape. Consider Rodney Hulin, who was arrested at 16 for setting fire
to a dumpster. Hulin received an eight-year sentence. After being
repeatedly raped and dismissed by prison authorities, he killed
himself.

Most victims survive. But as Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va.,
comments, "They leave prison much more likely to engage in crime than
when they went in." Barrett Duke -- a VP of the Southern Baptist
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission that lobbied for the Prison
Rape Elimination Act -- adds, "The sexual brutalization of inmates
exposes men and women to punishment that is not only cruel but that
also severely impedes their opportunity to rehabilitate themselves to
assume lives worthy of the dignity of their humanity."

More than dignity is involved. The HIV rate in prison is at least
four times that of the general public. In 2000, about 25,000 inmates
had HIV. A similar situation exists with other communicable diseases,
like Hepatitis C, which can be spread through certain sexual activity
and has become the most common blood-borne infection in the U.S.
According to the National Institute of Justice and the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care, the rate of HCV infection in
inmates is 9-10 times higher than in the general public.

You should care about prison rape if only for one reason:
Approximately 630,000 inmates were released from prison in 2002 and
became the people beside whom you may now be living and working.

There are several reasons why prison rape has been ignored for so
long -- primarily, that it is an ugly problem from which it is
tempting to turn away.

Prisoners also have no political clout. They do not vote or lobby
which, in effect, means they have no voice. By contrast, lawmakers
often gain popularity by being "hard" on crime and criminals. The
hardness assumes that prisoners deserve what is coming to them, even
young prisoners convicted of non-violent offenses. But no crime
should be punished by rape; HIV should not be part of a judge's
sentence. Rape should not be a fact of life for anyone.

Ironically, even the revolution in rape awareness in the last few
decades has tended to suppress discussion of prison rape. Politically
correct feminists defined rape as a crime of gender: That is, men
rape women. As with other issues like domestic violence, they resist
the identification of men as victims because that shifts the focus
from women and brings their ideological assumptions into
question.

Thus, it was the "anti-feminist" Concerned Women for America, and
not NOW, who lobbied for the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

The act may well be a Band-Aid placed over a gaping wound.
Certainly, it does not create the sweeping reforms that would address
the underlying causes of prison rape, such as overcrowding. And,
without such reforms, it is unlikely that the rape-prevention
training programs mandated by the act will be effective.

But it accomplishes two goals: public awareness and a message to
prison officials inclined to ignore inmate violence. Society can no
longer afford to ignore prison rape. It can no longer afford to
define rape as a gender crime or its victims as female. To end rape,
we must fight it wherever it occurs and defend whoever is being
victimized.Source: Wendy McElroy, www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0916.html

22% of Male Inmates Are Victims of
Rape

Human Rights Watch has just published a shocking 378-page report on
"No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons."

Studies cited in the report show that about 22% of male inmates
have been raped at least once during their incarceration. The report
includes numerous case histories, and documents widespread
indifference among prison authorities to the problem.

A Florida prisoner whom we will identify only as P.R. was beaten,
suffered a serious eye injury, and assaulted by an inmate armed with
a knife, all due to his refusal to submit to anal sex. After six
months of repeated threats and attacks by other inmates, at the end
of his emotional endurance, he tried to commit suicide by slashing
his wrists with a razor. In a letter to Human Rights Watch, he
chronicled his unsuccessful efforts to induce prison authorities to
protect him from abuse. Summing up these experiences, he wrote: "The
opposite of compassion is not hatred, it's indifference."

P.R.'s bleak outlook is not unjustified. Judging by the popular
media, rape is accepted as a commonplace of imprisonment, so much so
that when the topic of prison arises, a joking reference to rape
seems almost obligatory. Few members of the public would be surprised
by the assertion that men are frequently raped in prison, given
rape's established place in the mythology of prison life. Yet
serious, sustained, and constructive attention to the subject remains
rare. As Stephen Donaldson, the late president of the organization
Stop Prisoner Rape, once said: "the rape of males is a taboo subject
for public discussion . . . . If ever there was a crime hidden by a
curtain of silence, it is male rape."

Without question, the hard facts about inmate-on-inmate sexual
abuse are little known. No conclusive national data exist regarding
the prevalence of prisoner-on-prisoner rape and other sexual abuse in
the United States. Indeed, few commentators have even ventured to
speculate on the national incidence of rape in prison, although some,
extrapolating from small-scale studies, have come up with rough
estimates as to its prevalence. With the staggering growth of the
prison population over the past two decades, such ignorance is more
unjustifiable than ever.

Prison authorities, unsurprisingly, generally claim that
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse is an exceptional occurrence rather
than a systemic problem. Prison officials in New Mexico, for example,
responding to our 1997 request for information regarding "the
'problem' of male inmate-on-inmate rape and sexual abuse" (the
internal quotation marks are theirs), said that they had "no recorded
incidents over the past few years." The Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services informed Human Rights Watch that such incidents
were "minimal." Only Texas, Ohio, Florida, and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons said that they had more than fifty reported incidents in a
given year, numbers which, because of the large size of their prison
systems, still translate into extremely low rates of
victimization.

Yet prison authorities' claims are belied by independent research
on the topic. Indeed, the most recent academic studies of the issue
have found shockingly high rates of sexual abuse, including forced
oral and anal intercourse. In December 2000, the Prison Journal
published a study based on a survey of inmates in seven men's prison
facilities in four states. The results showed that 21 percent of the
inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced
sexual contact since being incarcerated, and at least 7 percent had
been raped in their facility. A 1996 study of the Nebraska prison
system produced similar findings, with 22 percent of male inmates
reporting that they had been pressured or forced to have sexual
contact against their will while incarcerated. Of these, over 50
percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once. Extrapolating
these findings to the national level gives a total of at least
140,000 inmates who have been raped.

An internal departmental survey of corrections officers in a
southern state (provided to Human Rights Watch on the condition that
the state not be identified) found that line officers -- those
charged with the direct supervision of inmates -- estimated that
roughly one-fifth of all prisoners were being coerced into
participation in inmate-on-inmate sex. Interestingly, higher-ranking
officials -- those at the supervisory level -- tended to give lower
estimates of the frequency of abuse, while inmates themselves gave
much higher estimates: the two groups cited victimization rates of
roughly one-eighth and one-third, respectively. Although the author
of the survey was careful to note that it was not conducted in
accordance with scientific standards, and thus its findings may not
be perfectly reliable, the basic conclusions are still striking. Even
taking only the lowest of the three estimates of coerced sexual
activity -- and even framing that one conservatively -- more than one
in ten inmates in the prisons surveyed was subject to sexual
abuse.

It is evident that certain prisoners are targeted for sexual
assault the moment they enter a penal facility: their age, looks,
sexual preference, and other characteristics mark them as candidates
for abuse. Human Rights Watch's research has revealed a broad range
of factors that correlate with increased vulnerability to rape. These
include youth, small size, and physical weakness; being white, gay,
or a first offender; possessing "feminine" characteristics such as
long hair or a high voice; being unassertive, unaggressive, shy,
intellectual, not street-smart, or "passive"; or having been
convicted of a sexual offense against a minor. Prisoners with any one
of these characteristics typically face an increased risk of sexual
abuse, while prisoners with several overlapping characteristics are
much more likely than other inmates to be targeted for abuse. Yet it
would be a mistake to think that only a minority of extremely
vulnerable individuals face sexual abuse. In the wrong circumstances,
it should be emphasized, almost any prisoner may become a victim.

The characteristics of prison rapists are somewhat less clear and
predictable, but certain patterns can nonetheless be discerned.
First, although some older inmates commit rape, the perpetrators also
tend to be young, if not always as young as their victims--generally
well under thirty-five years old. They are frequently larger or
stronger than their victims, and are generally more assertive,
physically aggressive, and more at home in the prison environment.
They are "street smart"--often gang members. They have typically been
convicted of more violent crimes than their victims.

The reality of sexual abuse in prison is deeply disturbing. Rapes
can be almost unimaginably vicious and brutal. Gang assaults are not
uncommon, and victims may be left beaten, bloody and, in the most
extreme cases, dead. One of the most tragic and violent cases to come
to the attention of Human Rights Watch was that of Randy Payne, a
twenty-three year old incarcerated in a Texas maximum security
prison. Within a week of entering the prison in August 1994, Payne
was attacked by a group of some twenty inmates. The inmates demanded
sex and money, but Payne refused. He was beaten for almost two hours;
guards later said they had not noticed anything until they found his
bloody body in the dayroom. He died of head injuries a few days
later.

Another Texas inmate, who had deep scars on his head, neck, and
chest, told Human Right Watch that the prisoner who inflicted the
wounds had raped him eight separate times from July through November
1995. The first time M.R. was raped -- "which felt like having a tree
limb shoved up into me" -- he told the prison chaplain about it, and
the chaplain had him write out a statement for the facility's
Internal Affairs department. According to M.R.'s description of the
events, the Internal Affairs investigator brought both the victim and
the perpetrator into a room together and asked them what had
happened. Although M.R. was terrified to speak of the incident in
front of the other inmate, he told his story, while the perpetrator
claimed the sex was consensual. After both of them had spoken, the
investigator told them that "lovers' quarrels" were not of interest
to Internal Affairs, sending them both back to their cells. "The guy
shoved me into his house and raped me again," M.R. later told Human
Rights Watch. "It was a lot more violent this time."

M.R. spent several months trying to escape the rapist, facing
repeated abuse. He filed grievances over the first couple of rapes in
an effort to draw the attention of prison officials; they were
returned saying the sexual assaults never occurred. On the last day
of December, the rapist showed up on M.R.'s wing and threatened to
kill M.R. with a combination lock. "I was in the dayroom. I remember
eating a piece of cornbread and the next thing I knew I woke up in
the hospital," M.R. recalled. A room full of prisoners saw the rapist
nearly kill M.R. and then rape him in the middle of the dayroom. The
rapist hit M.R. so hard with the lock that when M.R. regained
consciousness he could read the word "Master"-- the lockmaker--on his
forehead. Four years later, a Human Rights Watch researcher could
still see the round impression of the lock on the right side of his
forehead. In all, M.R. suffered a broken neck, jaw, left collarbone,
and finger; a dislocated left shoulder; two major concussions, and
lacerations to his scalp that caused bleeding on the brain.
Notwithstanding the extreme violence of the attack, and despite
M.R.'s best efforts to press charges, the rapist was never criminally
prosecuted.

Yet overtly violent rapes are only the most visible and dramatic
form of sexual abuse behind bars. Many victims of prison rape have
never had a knife to their throat. They may have never been
explicitly threatened. But they have nonetheless engaged in sexual
acts against their will, believing that they had no choice.

Although Human Rights Watch received many reports of forcible
sexual attacks, we also heard numerous accounts of abuse based on
more subtle forms of coercion and intimidation. Prisoners, including
those who had been forcibly raped, all agree that the threat of
violence, or even just the implicit threat of violence, is a more
common factor in sexual abuse than is actual violence. As one
explained:

From my point of view, rape takes place every day. A prisoner that
is engaging in sexual acts, not by force, is still a victim of rape
because I know that deep inside this prisoner do not want to do the
things that he is doing but he thinks that it is the only way that he
can survive.

Once subject to sexual abuse, whether violently or through
coercion, a prisoner may easily become trapped into a sexually
subordinate role. Prisoners refer to the initial rape as "turning
out" the victim, and the suggestion of transformation is telling.
Through the act of rape, the victim is redefined as an object of
sexual abuse. He has been proven to be weak, vulnerable, "female," in
the eyes of other inmates. Regaining his "manhood"--and the respect
of other prisoners--can be extremely difficult.

Stigmatized as a "punk" or "turn out," the victim of rape will
almost inevitably be the target of continuing sexual exploitation,
both from the initial perpetrator and, unless the perpetrator
"protects" him, from other inmates as well. "Once someone is violated
sexually and there is no consequences on the perpetrators, that
person who was violated then becomes a mark or marked," an Indiana
prisoner told Human Rights Watch. "That means he's fair game." His
victimization is likely to be public knowledge, and his reputation
will follow him to other housing areas, if he is moved, and even to
other prisons. As another inmate explained: "Word travels so Fast in
prison. The Convict grape vine is Large. You cant run or hide."

Prisoners unable to escape a situation of sexual abuse may find
themselves becoming another inmate's "property." The word is commonly
used in prison to refer to sexually subordinate inmates, and it is no
exaggeration. Victims of prison rape, in the most extreme cases, are
literally the slaves of the perpetrators. Forced to satisfy another
man's sexual appetites whenever he demands, they may also be
responsible for washing his clothes, massaging his back, cooking his
food, cleaning his cell, and myriad other chores. They are frequently
"rented out" for sex, sold, or even auctioned off to other inmates,
replicating the financial aspects of traditional slavery. Their most
basic choices, like how to dress and whom to talk to, may be
controlled by the person who "owns" them. Their name may be replaced
by a female one. Like all forms of slavery, these situations are
among the most degrading and dehumanizing experiences a person can
undergo.

J.D., a white inmate in Texas who admits that he "cannot fight
real good," told Human Rights Watch that he was violently raped by
his cellmate, a heavy, muscular man, in 1993. "From that day on," he
said, "I was classified as a homosexual and was sold from one inmate
to the next." Although he informed prison staff that he had been
raped and was transferred to another part of the prison, the white
inmates in his new housing area immediately "sold" him to a black
inmate known as Blue Top. Blue Top used J.D. sexually, while also
"renting" his sexual services to other black inmates. Besides being
forced to perform "all types of sexual acts," J.D. had to defer to
Blue Top in every other way. Under Blue Top's dominion, no task was
too menial or too degrading for J.D. to perform. After two and a half
months of this abuse, J.D. was finally transferred to a safer
environment.

Six Texas inmates gave Human Rights Watch firsthand accounts of
being forced into this type of sexual slavery, having even been
"sold" or "rented" out to other inmates. Numerous other Texas
prisoners confirmed that the practice of sexual slavery, including
the buying and selling of inmates, is commonplace in the system's
more dangerous prison units. Although Texas, judging from the
information received by Human Rights Watch, has the worst record in
this respect, we also collected personal testimonies from inmates in
Illinois, Michigan, California, and Arkansas who have survived
situations of sexual slavery.

Rape's effects on the victim's psyche are serious and enduring.
Victims of rape often suffer extreme psychological stress, a
condition identified as rape trauma syndrome. Many inmate victims
with whom Human Rights Watch has been in contact have reported
nightmares, deep depression, shame, loss of self-esteem, self-hatred,
and considering or attempting suicide. Serious questions arise as to
how the trauma of sexual abuse resolves itself when such inmates are
released into society. Indeed, some experts believe that the
experience of rape threatens to perpetuate a cycle of violence, with
the abused inmate in some instances turning violent himself.

Another devastating consequence of prisoner-on-prisoner rape is
the transmission of HIV, the virus which causes AIDS. Several
prisoners with whom Human Rights Watch is in contact believe that
they have contracted HIV through forced sexual intercourse in prison.
K.S., a prisoner in Arkansas, was repeatedly raped between January
and December 1991 by more than twenty different inmates, one of whom,
he believes, transmitted the HIV virus to him. K.S. had tested
negative for HIV upon entry to the prison system, but in September
1991 he tested positive.

It must be emphasized that rape and other sexual abuses occur in
prison because correctional officials, to a surprising extent, do
little to stop them from occurring. While some inmates with whom
Human Rights Watch is in contact have described relatively secure
institutions--where inmates are closely monitored, where steps are
taken to prevent inmate-on-inmate abuses, and where such abuses are
punished if they occur--many others report a decidedly laissez faire
approach to the problem. In too many institutions, prevention
measures are meager and effective punishment of abuses is rare.

Prisoner classification policies include among their goals the
separation of dangerous prisoners from those whom they are likely to
victimize. In the overcrowded prisons of today, however, the
practical demands of simply finding available space for inmates have
to a large extent overwhelmed classification ideals. Inmates
frequently find themselves placed among others whose background,
criminal history, and other characteristics make them an obvious
threat. Indeed, in the worst cases, prisoners are actually placed in
the same cell with inmates who are likely to victimize
them--sometimes even with inmates who have a demonstrated proclivity
for sexual abusing others.

Another casualty of the enormous growth of the country's prison
population is adequate staffing and supervision of inmates. The
consequences with regard to rape are obvious. Rape occurs most easily
when there is no prison staff around to see or hear it. Particularly
at night, prisoners have told Human Rights Watch, they are often left
alone and unsupervised in their housing areas. Several inmates have
reported to Human Rights Watch that they yelled for help when they
were attacked, to no avail. Although correctional staff are supposed
to make rounds at regular intervals, they do not always abide by
their schedules. Moreover, they often walk by prisoners' cells
without making an effort to see what is really happening within them.
The existence of difficult to monitor areas, especially in older
prisons, compounds the problem. As one Florida inmate summed up:
"Rapes occur because the lack of observation make it possible.
Prisons have too few guards and too many blind spots."

An absolutely central problem with regard to sexual abuse in
prison, emphasized by inmate after inmate, is the inadequate--and, in
many instances, callous and irresponsible--response of correctional
staff to complaints of rape. When an inmate informs an officer that
he has been threatened with rape or, even worse, actually assaulted,
it is crucial that his complaint be met with a rapid and effective
response. Most obviously, he should be brought to a place where his
safety can be protected and where he can set out his complaint in a
confidential manner. If the rape has already occurred, he should be
taken for whatever medical care may be needed and--a step that is
crucial for any potential criminal prosecution--where physical
evidence of rape can be collected. Yet from the reports that Human
Rights Watch has received, such responses are rare.

The criminal justice system also affords scant relief to sexually
abused prisoners. Few public prosecutors are concerned with
prosecuting crimes committed against inmates, preferring to leave
internal prison problems to the discretion of the prison authorities;
similarly, prison officials themselves rarely push for the
prosecution of prisoner-on-prisoner abuses. As a result, perpetrators
of prison rape almost never face criminal charges.

Internal disciplinary mechanisms, the putative substitute for
criminal prosecution, tend to function poorly in those cases in which
the victim reports the crime. In nearly every instance Human Rights
Watch has encountered, the authorities have imposed light
disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrator--perhaps thirty days
in disciplinary segregation--if that. Often rapists are simply
transferred to another facility, or are not moved at all. Their
victims, in contrast, may end up spending the rest of their prison
terms in protective custody units whose conditions are often similar
to those in disciplinary segregation: twenty-three hours per day in a
cell restricted privileges, and no educational or vocational
opportunities.

Disappointingly, the federal courts have not played a significant
role in curtailing prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Despite the
paucity of lawyers willing to litigate such cases, some inmates do
nonetheless file suit against the prison authorities in the aftermath
of rape. They assert that the authorities' failure to take steps to
protect them from abuse violates the prohibition on "cruel and usual
punishments" contained in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Such cases are often dismissed in the early stages of
litigation. Moreover, the rare case that does survive to reach a jury
typically finds the inmate plaintiff before an audience that is
wholly unreceptive to his story. While there have been a few generous
damages awards in prison rape case, they are the very rare exceptions
to the rule.

Unfortunately the legal rules that the courts have developed
relating to prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse create perverse
incentives for authorities to ignore the problem. Under the
"deliberate indifference" standard that is applicable to legal
challenges to prison officials' failure to protect prisoners from
inter-prisoner abuses such as rape, the prisoner must prove to the
court that the defendants had actual knowledge of a substantial risk
to him, and that they disregarded that risk. As the courts have
emphasized, it is not enough for the prisoner to prove that "the risk
was obvious and a reasonable prison official would have noticed it."
Instead, if a prison official lacked knowledge of the risk--no matter
how obvious it was to anyone else--he cannot be held liable. In other
words, rather than trying to ascertain the true dimensions of the
problem of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, prison officials have
good reason to want to remain unaware of it.

Recommendations

The existing situation, marked by a wholesale disregard for
prisoners' right to be free of violent rape and other forms of
unwanted sexual contact, must be reformed. Human Rights Watch calls
on the United States authorities to demonstrate their commitment to
prevent, investigate, and punish prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse in
men's prisons and jails, as required under both international and
national law. We make the following recommendations to the federal
and state governments, urging them to step up their efforts to
address this gross violation of human dignity.

Recommendations to Federal Authorities

I. To the U.S. Congress

Congress should amend or repeal those provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that severely hinder prisoners,
nongovernmental organizations, and the Department of Justice in their
efforts to remedy unconstitutional conditions in state correctional
facilities. The following changes should, at a minimum, be
considered: the repeal of 18 United States Code Section 3626(a)(1),
which requires that judicially enforceable consent decrees contain
findings of federal law violations; the repeal of 18 United States
Code Section 3626(b), which requires all judicial orders to terminate
two years after they are issued; and the restoration of funding for
special masters' and attorneys' fees to the levels that prevailed
before the passage of the PLRA.

Congress should pass legislation conditioning states' eligibility
for funding for prison construction and equipment purchases on
efforts by state correctional authorities to combat
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Such efforts should include
comprehensive protocols to govern staff response to cases of
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, the establishment of a sexual
abuse prevention program that includes inmate orientation and staff
training, and the collection of data on prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
abuse. Congress should appropriate the funds necessary to enable the
Department of Justice to conduct increased and thorough
investigations of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse and to enjoin
prohibited conduct pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (CRIPA).

Congress should pass legislation requiring states to certify that
their prisoner grievance procedures satisfy the requirements of the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). It should also
review CRIPA provisions pertaining to the certification of prison
grievance procedures to ensure that certified procedures will
function effectively for complaints of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
abuse. Congress should hold hearings on the problem of male
inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse.

Congress should adopt legislation to withdraw the restrictive
reservations, declarations and understandings that the United States
has attached to the ICCPR and the Torture Convention. Congress should
adopt legislation to implement the ICCPR and the Torture Convention
within the United States, in particular, to establish that the
provisions of these treaties are legally enforceable in U.S.
courts.

II. To the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice

The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division should
investigate reports of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse to ascertain
whether they rise to the level of a "pattern or practice." Any
allegations that meet this standard should be vigorously prosecuted.
Allegations that do not meet this standard should be forwarded to
state authorities for investigation. When investigating conditions in
any men's correctional facility, the Special Litigation Unit should
be extremely attentive to the issue of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
abuse and cognizant of the difficulties of obtaining information on
the issue. One member of every investigative team, preferably someone
with particularized expertise in the area of sexual abuse, should be
named as the point person on this topic.

The Special Litigation Section should name an attorney to be
responsible for overseeing its investigations of prisoner-on-prisoner
sexual abuse, including formulating proactive strategies for
obtaining information on such abuse. All complaints lodged with the
section that are relevant to this topic should be copied to this
person. The person should familiarize him- or herself with the
complexities of the topic by meeting with experts and reviewing
relevant studies and reports.

III. To the National Institute of Corrections

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) should develop
training programs on the topicof male prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
abuse for both high-level corrections officials and line staff. In
drafting a curriculum for the training, the NIC should consult with
outside experts who have studied the topic. The object of these
programs should be to sensitize corrections officials as to the
importance of taking effective steps to prevent and remedy
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, and to provide them with the tools
needed to do so. The NIC should draft model investigatory procedures
for allegations of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse.

The NIC should make an effort to collect, maintain and disseminate
data relating to prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse.

Recommendations to State Authorities and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP)

I. To State Departments of Corrections (DOCs) and the
BOP

DOCs should draft comprehensive protocols to govern staff response
to cases of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Such protocols should
contain guidelines on investigation, evidence collection, outside
reporting, and medical and psychological treatment of victims of
abuse. The guidelines should emphasize the importance of the prompt
collection of evidence, and the immediate medical care of victims.
DOC staff, particularly line staff, should be vigilant and attentive
to the problem of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse while being
cognizant of the difficulties of detecting it. In particular, line
officers should react appropriately to signs of abuse. Any inmate
claiming that he has been subject to sexual abuse, or that he is in
imminent danger of such abuse, should be immediately removed to a
holding cell in another area, and a prompt investigation of his
claims should be instituted. All prisons should at all times be
staffed with sufficient numbers of correctional officers to ensure
effective monitoring and control of the prison population. Officers
should make regular rounds, closely monitoring prisoners' treatment
and ensuring that abuses do not occur. DOCs should routinely report
all cases of rape or other criminal sexual abuse to local police and
prosecutorial authorities for possible criminal prosecution. They
should make clear to such authorities that such reporting is not
merely a bureaucratic formality--rather, that they expect cases to be
fully investigated and, if the evidence warrants it, prosecuted to
the full extent of the law. In addition to referring cases out for
criminal prosecution, DOCs should take appropriate disciplinary
actions against the perpetrators of sexual abuse. Administrative
proceedings should be instituted, a prompt and thorough investigation
should be conducted, and if guilt is established an appropriately
serious punishment should be imposed. In no instance should the
perpetrator simply be transferred to another unit. A section of the
orientation programming provided to incoming male prisoners should be
dedicated to educating them about the issue of prisoner-on-prisoner
sexual abuse. It should emphasize, in particular, the right not to be
subject to such abuse, and how that right can be enforced. It should
also inform prisoners of how and to whom to report such abuse; what
scenarios commonly lead to sexual abuse, what to do if abuse occurs
(mentioning, in particular, the importance of prompt reporting and
evidence collection); and options such as protective custody. DOCs
should never hold minors together with adult prisoners. The two
groups should be kept entirely separate from each other. Prisoners
who, by virtue of the risk factors discussed in chapter IV of this
report, are clear potential targets for sexual abuse should be warned
of their possible vulnerability and offered protective custody or
other protective options. DOCs should avoid double-celling prisoners.
If double-celling is unavoidable, corrections authorities should take
extreme care in selecting appropriate cellmates, giving due regard to
the risk factors described in chapter IV of this report and to
inmates' preferences. Prisoners with a known history of committing
sexual abuse or harassment should never be double-celled, whether or
not they have been subject to disciplinary proceedings or
prosecution. All DOC employees, from high-level officials to line
staff, should receive detailed and realistic training on the issue of
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse. Line staff, in particular, should
be trained regarding how to respond to inmate complaints or fears of
sexual abuse, risk factors increasing prisoners' likelihood of being
subject to such abuse, and common scenarios leading to such abuse.
Particular attention should be paid to the problem of staff
homophobia, a problem that frequently reveals itself in an
unsympathetic and unprofessional response to the problem of
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, particularly when gay inmates (or
inmates perceived as gay) are the target of such abuse. Appropriate
classification policies should be instituted and strictly followed to
separate at-risk inmates from potential aggressors. Particular
attention should be given to the risk factors described in chapter IV
of this report. The conditions of protective custody and safekeeping
units--areas in which vulnerable prisoners are held--should not be
punitive in nature. Although heightened security concerns may entail
additional restrictions on inmate movement, conditions should
otherwise be kept as normal as possible. In particular, educational,
vocational, and other program opportunities should be made available
to inmates held in such units. Psychological counseling should be
promptly provided to all victims of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
abuse. Given the element of racial bias in many instances of
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, steps should be taken to address
racial tensions in the inmate population. DOC staff should receive
racial sensitivity training. Racial slurs and other forms of
harassment--whether from inmates or staff--should not be tolerated.
In the design of correctional facilities, attention should be given
to the problem of prisoner-on-prisoner violence and sexual abuse. All
areas should be easily monitored by and accessible to DOC staff.
Cells should be designed for a single inmate. Effective data
collection should be undertaken. Statistics on prisoner-on-prisoner
sexual abuse must be disaggregated from statistics on overall prison
violence. Information on disciplinary actions and criminal
prosecutions of perpetrators of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse
should also be collected. Data should be compiled and made public on
an annual basis. In general, abusive prison conditions, marked by
overcrowding, custodial abuse, lack of work, vocational, and
educational opportunities, etc., should be remedied, as such
conditions encourage inmate-on-inmate violence and sexual abuse.

II. To State and Local Prosecutors

Strictly enforce state criminal laws prohibiting rape by
investigating and prosecuting instances of prisoner-on-prisoner rape.
Do not abdicate responsibility for prison abuses by allowing
corrections authorities to handle them via internal disciplinary
procedures.